Bodvar: Again Pirsig inadvertently confirms the SOL (intellect as the S/O distinction). From inside intellect the fundamental split is between a self and its world. If Arlo still is "conscious" from his fencing with Platt and spots this I challenge him to explain it away
Andre: I was looking forward to a post of yours Bodvar...much is twitter of late. The 'self' is an intellectual pattern of value good for logging into your computer and getting to China (via a passport). Epistemically/ conventionally we need to exist, ontologically we are concepts (is this the correct way of interpreting this SOM stuff?)!!!!!!!!! The Buddhist would make the distinction between 'conventional' and 'inherent' existence. I appreciate this and who am i to challenge or defy this understanding. I am but a speck of dust. It is a different way of experience. The former is static the latter is dynamic. I am not sure Bodvar, but perhaps we are both experiencing the MoQ in a dynamic way, (and it should not be any other way but because of the latching things need to be halted...to give it time to not only sink in, but also to grow). But not everybody feels this breath of fresh air in the same way as we do?! Even a speck of dust changes over time. But time is an intellectual convenience. Concepts put within this frame are 'progressing' and 'evolving'. The word, the wank. Since when has the word lost its power to convey meaning? Since when has the string of words lost their meaning to convey reality?. Since when has the word not been THE factor in abstacting the intellectual from the social? The word has lost its power and its representation. It seems to me that intellect has done society a disservice here. Intellect has rendered the word meaningless. Language, as a social POV, a formative and binding mechanism has been hollowed out. It doesn't seem to represent anything anymore and if it does it can be interpreted under multiple guises. So much for binding and protecting at a social level. Intellect has done nothing to further its intention and purpose. It has set the parameters of creating its opposite. Word as concept. A true social representation as against an intellectual 'figment of the imagination'. But I do want to hear the Pirsig, on this MD, who condemns the throwing of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only as an illusion within some sort of (Hindu) philosophical framework but also in reality ( as a challenge to our intellectual representation thereof ). I feel that it is this (other) reality Pirsig tries to give life to as the one we treat as 'conceptual'. This is doing a disservice to Mr. Pirsig as well as the MoQ as well as reality i.e quality. The MoQ is a written document, I am aware...of course, but it moves at the same time...it has moved us and it is continuing to move us at the inorganic, organic, social and intelklectual level. The movement is double edged...in aeons and immediate. We have the freedom to the immediate. I declare the MoQ to be dynamic and no other interpretation will suffice...except for the academics... . It's almost a call to arms, but I do not intend it in this way. It'll smack of Plattonian socialism. I do think however that it is an intellectual , social, organic and inorganic revolution....through which all levels will be liberated...i.e moved on to freedom i.e moved on one, or more latches further from static patterns. (Yes Arlo, I sympathise with your notion that perhaps, at one stage, the inorganic/organic even the social level will cease to exist..or rather , be necessary). And eventhough Pirsig's stance on eliminating subject/object thinking had softened with Lila's Child's publication ( McWatts PhD p 17), the germ let lose by the publication of both ZMM and Lila cannot and must not be contained...and certainly not by SOM constructs, inventions,paradoxes,intellect, logical hangovers and indeed all stale/conventional static patterns of value. We are still trying to make sense of the MoQ within a SOM framework, and then, having made sense... continue the SOM! (OK this is still a personal struggle so piss off everyone!!!...or to whomever it applies) We must not soften. As John said at one stage: Metaphysics is not for sissies. Well, I do not quite agree. Pirsig is the living example, and Northrop re- emphasises it, eventhough the receptiveness to DQ requires a certain opennes/softeness of the heart , the willingness to defend and protect and bear witness to it requires intellectual stamina, poetic justice and a revolutionary spirit and tenaciousness. If this is not a summary of Phaedrus' struggle I don't know what is. Oh well, it was a moment for me to off load. Sorry it took so long. Sick of this conceptual stuff. The MoQ is alive and well. The static is for the academics, the dynamic is for you and me. Dynamically we grow, statically we die. (united we stand, divided we fall). For what it is worth. Andre Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
